juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kurt T Stam <kurt.s...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: UDDI v3 persistence
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:07:46 GMT
Those objects will actually remain the same, the are the actual single 
valued PKs. So I think this will work well.

Jeff Faath wrote:
> No, I'm talking about getting the BusinessEntity by the  business key. I was
> figuring you were going to create these Long id fields for the main entities
> but I could be wrong.  Are the "entity keys" still the primary keys for the
> main entities?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt T Stam [mailto:kurt.stam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: UDDI v3 persistence
>
> Are you talking about finding Addresses etc by using the BusinessEntity Key?
>
> Jeff Faath wrote:
>   
>> Now that I think about it, it does cause an inconvenience although it
>>     
> seems
>   
>> slight right now (let's hope it stays that way).  Anytime an entity is
>> retrieved or deleted, I was able to use the entity key directly to work
>>     
> with
>   
>> the object.  A lot of calls receive user input directly as keys (the
>> delete_xxx methods, get_xxx methods, etc) and there are many instances
>>     
> where
>   
>> I have to check for the existence of an entity.
>>
>> I guess now instead of using the entity key directly in entityManager
>>     
> calls,
>   
>> I'll have to run a query to find the real ID based on the entity key.  I
>> don't see this as being a big deal now, but there's a lot of functionality
>> to re-work so I hope there are no snags.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kurt T Stam [mailto:kurt.stam@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:47 AM
>> To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
>> Subject: UDDI v3 persistence
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I'm halfway into removing all the *Id.java classes from the persistence 
>> layer on the UDDI v3 branch, and it is making it all a lot cleaner. The 
>> reason they are there is b/c the way the PKs are setup in the UDDI v2 
>> schema. They are composite PK, however we can simplify the PKs to be of 
>> type Long.
>>
>> Does anyone see any issues with this? Where we planning on using the 
>> parents business keys for fast searching or something? Are we afraid of 
>> running out of 'integers' in the ID columns?
>>
>> Speak up or hold your peace forever ;).
>>
>> --Kurt
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>
>   


Mime
View raw message